battleforgefandomcom-20200223-history
Template talk:Preload card
Since I can't get the createplate to work, I've created this template. --Aliyon 19:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Looks great, and should be fine. I'll try to get all the shadow cards in this week. --Rodamn 16:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Just realized that we should include upgrade information on this page. Maybe change the Upgrade Locations heading to just "Upgrades" and include upgrade specs and card pics, optionally. - Rodamn 18:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Like I said before, BFcards already does that far better than we ever could and that is a hell of a lot more work. --Aliyon 20:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Don't kill yourself trying to do it all at once. We might want to take it slow and see if we think of anything else the page needs. Would be a real pain to change it after all the card pages are made. --Aliyon 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Didn't realize they had upgrade info, too. Hmmm...I was still thinking that there might be strategy and info that we can provide about upgrades that bfcard.info doesn't. --Rodamn 05:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC) I figure the easier way to do that would be to mention it in the description if the upgrade is significant, many aren't. And for added abilities just list them with the rest and note that they are added with an upgrade. Not really sure how else to do it. Suggestions? --Aliyon 07:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Sounds good to me. --Rodamn 15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Do you think it looks better with the 'clr' after the card image and toc? --Aliyon 00:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC) :Yeah, I don't like the headers running into the side of the pic, but I also don't like all that whitespace. Whitespace is the less ugly I think. --Rodamn 14:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Also, I'm trying to decide what kind of naming scheme we should use for card categories. We have Frost Cards, Flying, Rare Cards, etc... Should for example Flying be Flying Cards? Should they stay the way they are or does it matter?--Aliyon 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC) :I guess it depends on whether we're talking about an attribute/special ability or a set of cards. I think these pages are about the special abilities themselves and not specific to the cards themselves. (As an aside, I think of flying as a special ability, though it's never listed as one. In the few other CCG's that I've known, it's always listed.) However, like for Archers, it's for a class of cards, and not cards with specific special abilities or attributes. :So, I'd say you'd have three or four Categories: '''Editions' (I'd leave this out until we get a second edition), Factions, Classes (e.g. Archers, Soldiers, you could even throw races into this, like worm or giant), and Special Abilities That's my 2c... :--Rodamn 14:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, been busy working on another BF-related project of mine for the past few days. Here's my input for the the template (for others reading, see Card:Skyelf Templar vs. Card:Church of Negation... To be honest, I prefer seeing the card near the top right of the page. However, you may agree that this causes layout ugliness with the headers. I guess my suggestion is to drop the Overview and Description headers and bring the image back up top. This would mirror the normal layout of a typical wiki article. Here's an example from an older page: http://battleforge.wikia.com/index.php?title=Colossus&oldid=5407. I'm honestly a bit stumped for making the card pages look "right" --Rodamn 14:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC) New possibility. See Card:Rageclaws. --Aliyon 21:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC) The style shown under Rageclaws is certainly the best so far, in my opinion. Something is still "off" to me. I think we may need to add a left padding margin or something. I'll give it a go and see if it looks any better. --Rodamn 15:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I think I can be happy with this layout now. :) See my Template:Infobox card comment at Template talk:Infobox card. --Rodamn 17:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC) LoL. I guess I wasn't happy to just leave good enough alone. I changed Card:Rageclaws to use something similar (perhaps even the same) to one of your earlier card page layouts. While I didn't like it previously, the margins of the cardbox make it work really well, especially with the show/hide of the TOC. If you don't like the TOC, I'd be fine with having NO_TOC too. This style of page layout more closely fits with other wiki's like WP and such, while also being less boring. --Rodamn 17:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Looks pretty good. --Aliyon 23:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC) We need to standardize the Upgrades section. Every article does it differently. --Aliyon 21:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)